White House Looks To Curb Foreign Powers' Ability To Buy Americans' Sensitive Personal Data With Executive Order (cnn.com) 117
President Joe Biden will issue an executive order on Wednesday aimed at curbing foreign governments' ability to buy Americans' sensitive personal information such as heath and geolocation data, according to senior US officials. From a report: The move marks a rare policy effort to address a longstanding US national security concern: the ease with which anyone, including a foreign intelligence services, can legally buy Americans' data and then use the information for espionage, hacking and blackmail. The issue, a senior Justice Department official told reporters this week, is a "growing threat to our national security."
The executive order will give the Justice Department the authority to regulate commercial transactions that "pose an unacceptable risk" to national security by, for example, giving a foreign power large-scale access to Americans' personal data, the Justice Department official said. The department will also issue regulations that require better protection of sensitive government information, including geolocation data on US military members, according to US officials. A lot of the online trade in personal information runs through so-called data brokers, which buy information on people's Social Security numbers, names, addresses, income, employment history and criminal background, as well as other items.
"Countries of concern, such as China and Russia, are buying Americans' sensitive personal data from data brokers," a separate senior administration official told reporters. In addition to health and location data, the executive order is expected to cover other sensitive information like genomic and financial data. Administration officials told reporters the new executive order would be applied narrowly so as not to hurt business transactions that do not pose a national security risk. The White House's press release.
The executive order will give the Justice Department the authority to regulate commercial transactions that "pose an unacceptable risk" to national security by, for example, giving a foreign power large-scale access to Americans' personal data, the Justice Department official said. The department will also issue regulations that require better protection of sensitive government information, including geolocation data on US military members, according to US officials. A lot of the online trade in personal information runs through so-called data brokers, which buy information on people's Social Security numbers, names, addresses, income, employment history and criminal background, as well as other items.
"Countries of concern, such as China and Russia, are buying Americans' sensitive personal data from data brokers," a separate senior administration official told reporters. In addition to health and location data, the executive order is expected to cover other sensitive information like genomic and financial data. Administration officials told reporters the new executive order would be applied narrowly so as not to hurt business transactions that do not pose a national security risk. The White House's press release.
Foreign powers? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not start with something a bit more basic to our national security, and stop foreign countries (China especially) from buying up US farm land and other lands and businesses...???
We should not allow foreign countries (especially openly hostile ones) to purchase, own and control any of our physical assets in addition to our digital ones.
Re: (Score:3)
So now you want government regulation in a free market?
Re: (Score:2)
"When it's something I support the slopes go from slippery to sticky awful quickly"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As many more moderate libs tend to promote....a free market with cautious regulation.
I like a free market internally to the US, but for external entities, well, it's US first.
And for national security, there are pretty much always exceptions to the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but technically a foreign entity purchasing a US farm is *investing*. What's more, they're often investing through US chartered corporations, which are technically *American persons*.
This gets complicated really quick. OK, we stop foreign entities from setting up shell companies, but should they be able to buy stock in American companies? What about other assets like factories? If we disallow foreign ownership of those, but about those TSMC chip fabs we depend upon being in Taiwan?
To tell the tr
Re: Foreign powers? (Score:2)
I don't care as much if Japan owns a steel company. I care if China and Saudi Arabia export all the groundwater in the south via alfalfa and almonds.
Re: (Score:3)
So now you want government regulation in a free market?
I think the logic is that if you want to be able to fully participate in our free market, you should be an American citizen. That concept actually makes sense when we're talking about highly competitive limited resources such as US real estate. Not so much when interpreted to apply to something like TikTok though, because nothing is preventing American companies from also competing in the short format video ecosystem.
Of course, I could see China becoming more than a little miffed if all the cash we give t
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not foreign "countries" buying the property, but foreigners. You can't really stop that without major changes to the constitution. If I sell my house, I should be allowed to sell it to anyone, I should not be forced to vet them that they're not really evil doers from Canada. If domestic real estate looks like a good investment, then it will be obvious that foreigners will want in on those investments. If that gets banned by congress, then they may as well ban all foreign investments includi
Re: (Score:3)
I am as big a skeptic of our ability to as a society to have peaceful and open trade relationship with China as you'll find but even I fail to understand quite what the actual concern is here.
We have the Defense Production Act. China can own all the farmland it wants in the event of a hot conflict the Chinese owners will likely be cut off control of those assets permanently. Even in a cold conflict if China tried to say manipulate American Food prices or something the instant they started enjoying any succ
Re: (Score:2)
Your concerns are completely taken care of by the Defense Production Act.
If China started fucking around with US farms or factories, we have legal means to compel the operators of those physical assets to get their asses in gear, or be seized by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to w
Re: (Score:2)
Why not start with something a bit more basic to our national security, and stop foreign countries (China especially) from buying up US farm land and other lands and businesses...???
Land is the best thing your potential "enemy" could buy from you. They cannot take the land away, and as soon as the missiles started flying, you can confiscate "their" land for free. Buying land in your country is basically posting a voluntary bond against starting a war with you! It is all advantages on your side.
While businesses is more complicated, but again, as soon as war starts you can confiscate them for free. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Foreign powers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And US-incorporated shell entities would easily be able to fence this data to non-US entities anyway. They're treating a symptom. They need to criminalize the collection of this data in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the lies feel like truth, and they want their feelings acknowledged! Maybe just a hug.
Re: Foreign powers? (Score:2)
4473 violations are hardly ever prosecuted. And if it were enforced hardcore, most gun owners in Colorado, Washington etc. would be convicted.
Re: (Score:3)
That party is obsessed with pedophiles. I think some political operative realized that the one issue everyone can rally behind is that they hate pedophiles, and then the fearmongering was invented that pedos were everywhere in the opposing part. At that point just sit back and watch the circus act unfold.
Re: (Score:3)
What's even more entertaining is that all of this is likely to turn up being a grand conspiracy of projection, just like when we see all the anti-LGBT clowns getting exposed having gay trysts with paid-for escorts, or by groping same-sex interns and aides. Over and fucking over. There's tons of examples, all of them Republican anti-gay crusaders.
Self-loathing, much?
Re: Foreign powers? (Score:1)
Oh, didn't realize you are a coward. You probably think you'll be targeted for criticizing a democrat. Turn off Jesse Watters.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I get plenty of mod points, you dont because youre a pathetic, irrelevant troll. Back soon to bitchslap you back to -1.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how they think they can just ban foreign governments from getting it, the same way the Soviets thought they could just keep the West from buying their titanium during the cold war...
So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:3)
What's the limit on these things? Could Biden (or any elected US president for that matter) just declare law with one? Could he, for example, order the treasury to release fund to Ukraine, or halt production of ICE cars? I'm fuzzy on the actual limits (I suppose they could be overturned in courts...but again, I"m not certain, hence why I am asking)
Re:So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, for a simple start.
The president (and rest of the executive branch under him), and the judicial branch can NOT make law, period.
Only the US congress (Senate plus House of Representatives passing things together) can make actual law.
The president can issue executive orders where he can try to help say what he interprets laws to say, in case of vague ones....and his executive agencies under him, are to enforce the laws that congress has passed.
The problem has come lately, growing more over time, that the president and the agencies under him have been overstepping their bounds and trying to essentially make law where there is none by congress.
A lot of the lawsuits and such you see hitting SCOTUS are the other branches and the people pushing back on this.
That's what's been going on in a nutshell.....Hope that helps a little.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
These laws are hitting the supreme court because it’s stacked with justices that don’t even pretend to be impartial anymore. A conservative group brings a case and the outcome is guaranteed.
Re:So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:5, Informative)
The court is stacked more with justices that are more originalists, trying to interpret the constitution based on the intent of the founding fathers and those at the times of the amendments.
Alito takes a free fancy vacation and then later on rules favorably for the man who paid for it. Any other judge would have immediately recused themselves from the case. https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Thomas got an interest free loan and eventually was forgiven on the loan for his $250k motor home. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Thomas is also on record for he goal was to make liberals miserable as a judge. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
So by the term "originalists" do you mean citing a 17th century witch hunter when it comes to bodily autonomy? https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]
Re:So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:5, Informative)
The court is stacked more with justices that are more originalists, trying to interpret the constitution based on the intent of the founding fathers and those at the times of the amendments.
If this was remotely true, we'd have already seen a decision on the Colorado 14th amendment case trying to block Trump from the ballot for being disqualified. The congressional record of the debates from the framers of the 14th Amendment are very clear that it would apply to the Presidency as well, and that Jefferson Davis absolutely knew he was disqualified under A14.3 which is why he never tried to run for President despite having the support of the southern states.
This court decides what they want the outcome to be, and then reverse-engineers the legal argument to justify it. This is how we got references to 17th century witch trials in justification of overturning Roe after 50 years of trying.
Re: (Score:2)
It appears this decision will likely be
Re: (Score:3)
But each state does have its constituency and those citizens of each state can vote to get representatives in to change/make the laws as they wish.
But do they?
With the gerrymandering that many states have enacted for their majority party to keep and expand their majorities even with a minority share of the overall vote, that means that those citizens don't necessarily get to vote for their representation, because their representation picked their voters.
See: Wisconsin. Statewide votes are almost always 50/50, but somehow their state legislature is overwhelmingly GOP. I wonder why that is?
Re: So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:2)
And there's question if the 14th is actionable on its own or if there needs to be congressional law made to define insurrection and enforce it.
There already is a law. But I don't think even the most warped originalist could say a constitutional amendment written during reconstruction is constrained by a law written during the red scare. If it wasn't written in the constitution or already a law at the time, insurrection means whatever the SC decides it means with their mystery magic 8 ball time machine originalism bs, not legislation 80 or 160 years later.
Look at it another way, can Congress pass a law defining what bear arms means?
Re: (Score:2)
This court decides what they want the outcome to be, and then reverse-engineers the legal argument to justify it.
Again, humans can't help but put their thumb on the scale. *sigh*
Re: (Score:3)
Congress only passed 27 bills in 2023 -- there is no way the U.S. Government could function if every decis
Re: (Score:2)
The snag are the agencies. Here's an example. Nixon did not create the EPA, congress created it. Nixon did not create the framework that allowed the EPA to regulate, congress did this. Nixon did not create a set of rules that the EPA should follow, congress created legislation that said what the EPA was allowed to do. What Nixon and subsequent presidents could do is create executive orders (not laws) stating what some priorities of the EPA might be, direct the EPA to look at certain problem areas, etc.
No
Re: (Score:3)
If we had a congress that could be counted on to do anything at all other than bicker like school children, executive orders would probably stop outright. An executive order isn't a law. It's more of a "firm suggestion," where the only true consequence for not following it is a chance to end up in court or on the President's naughty list. Courts do their best to curtail the more egregious orders, and most folks down the line take the non-disagreeable ones in stride.
The real solution to the executive overrea
Re: (Score:2)
Also we have to remember a lot of this Executive Order authority comes from Congress ceding their authority over to Executive functions.
Also Biden ran on on and for the entirety of his Presidency has made statement after statement of asking Congress to act on issues instead of having to go the EO route and while he's done better on some fronts there is just total gridlock on many, many issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Gridlock is a term for 'not getting what you want'. Either Congress doesn't think it important or is purposely avoiding it, but that's not gridlock. It engenders this view of a cadre of people pushing hard for something they aren't getting, which isn't true. I mean if they cared enough, how hard would it be for the Senate to attempt to pass a bill guaranteeing a right to an abortion within a fixed time frame. Note no such attempt has been made. Why? [congress.gov] I mean you could cite cloture, that they wouldn't ge
Re: (Score:2)
I mean you could cite cloture, that they wouldn't get the 60 votes to bring it to a vote, but no one has even introduced the bill on the floor for debate.
I mean, nobodies gonna bring a vote to floor if they know they don't have 60 votes so it's a bit cyclical of an answer. That's why the "Force The Vote" campaign for a vote on Medicare-4-All was silly. It didn't have to come to a vote because we know how everyone feels about it by the list of cosponsors on the bill already.
I mean if they cared enough, how hard would it be for the Senate to attempt to pass a bill guaranteeing a right to an abortion within a fixed time frame.
Yeah, there's not gonna be a bill because there is no way in hell it passes the Senate or the Republican Majority House this session so any attempt is a dead end and a waste of time.
Bet
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans actively don't want Ukraine aid. I mean you can find people in the caucus who are for it, but it's extremely unpopular in their electorate. They might play games with it on camera, but they don't want it and aren't lifting a finger to make it happen. So that doesn't sound like gridlock to me, just excuses for doing what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe but what would call you a steadfast refusal to compromise? They did want a border bill and one was all set to pass before the last minute it was killed due to politics.
If you don't want to call it gridlock do we call it obstruction? Stubbornness? We can get into the semantics of the word but a piece of legislation getting buried for reasons unrelated to legislation at hand. The fact that there are private/public contradictions makes the case only stronger, not weaker.
What would we call Senator Tube
Re: (Score:2)
But my argument is that it is because of the nature of the legislation. The Republicans are not going to vote for abortion or Ukraine aid because they don't want to face voters with an albatross around their necks (in the eyes of those they count on for most of their base support). The Democrats are no different. Imagine a Democrat going back to their constituency and saying they voted to extend the Trump tax cuts and the $10k state and local tax limitation, just to create a fake analogous issue. Or not
Re: (Score:2)
The nationalization of media and ultimately the internet had a good bit to do with it. A whipping (in the political sense) arms race amongst both parties happened and now no one can have a divergent point of view on virtually anything anymore. And here we are at the culmination of that, with a virtually 50/50 country, and the only way out people see from this MAD political arms race is totalitarianism.
Yeah I think we're on the same page mostly since the internet especially has made things just... weirder and more aggressive overall. You're right about the legislation taking on a more partisan streak but we also saw with the infrastructure bill that it can still be done, like you said, neither party has a super strong position on those issues, those are exactly the type of areas where we should get some horse trading and everyone can walk out with something but still bitch about it later which is the bes
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine Republicans going back to their constituents and telling them they voted for a border bill! What outrage there would be for action on the border!
Re: (Score:1)
That was politics. It's an election year, and Biden desperately needs a win on immigration to appeal to voters. The Republicans didn't want to give him that win after he effectively supporting open borders for the past 3 years. Not to mention there could be legitimate fear within the Republican party that if harsher immigration laws are passed this year (that help Biden win an election), he could
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, so what the Republicans and you really are saying is "the border isn't really that much of a crisis, it's not really 'open' and we can afford to push it off for 12-18 months so we can help our election.
I mean, that's what he did with the strict Trump immigration policies after he took office.
This isn't really true and if it was why would be openly supporting and ready to support a law that would have been the most stringent and mostly Republican supported immigration reforms in like 30 years? It's kind of incoherent.
Re: (Score:1)
No, they're saying it is a crisis, and given the choice of it being a crisis for the next 9 months or the next 4 years, they're gambling to pull off the former. Especially if it means a stricter policy.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Pretty damning to me. Never in my life have I seen a more obvious case of cause-and-effect.
Re: (Score:2)
So not a crisis, got it. The term "crisis" implies it cannot wait, it is untenable.
Like we had that shit on lockdown coming out of the Trump era. Illegal immigration had slowed to a crawl.
Huh? It's absolutely true:
Reinstating DACA was very popular and a signature policy during Biden's VP term, of course it was coming back. 0 to to do with the border. "The Wall" would have to be shown it prevented anything in the first place Remain in Mexico was only affecting about 70k, not insignificant but far from an "open border"
Is that your best evidence? Border Patrol has received record funding under Biden and many policies have remained th
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what crisis means. Crises have levels. The 2020 California drought was a crisis that lasted 3 years. Global warming is considered a crisis and the earth is still here if we don't do anything for 1 year. Ukraine is a different crisis where the entire country could lose if we don't give them ammo in the next 3 months. Katrina/New Orleans was a crisis that required immediate intervention. The term itself impli
Re: (Score:2)
The universe you describe -- where what gets passed is what a majority of Congressmen thinks is important -- is much better than the universe we actally live in. In *this* universe a majority of Congress can think something is important but still be unable to do anything about it. It has to do with the nature of political power. Mathematicians and political scientists have looked at quantifying political power, and one interesting formualtion is this: political power is the number of winning coalitions y
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is endemic with tiny majorities, and not just in the US.
Deeper in the thread with Jacks... I explain why I think the system is totally broken. Basically: nationalization of virtually all issues and whipping the entire caucus into line. Nationalized media fostered this. It was thought to have political benefits. It didn't. I don't see a road back to the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Too some degree, yes. But it's really inherent in the nature of political parties. They're coalitions that are more diverse than they let on. The Conservatives over in the UK won a massive majority in 2019, but have continually been hamstrung by infighting and backstabbing ever since.
Also note that the Democratic majority in 2022 was pretty much the same narrow size as the Republican majority in 2023, but they literally passed 10x the legislation. To be fair part of that is because they also held a slim
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't obvious to me that number of laws passed is a useful measure of anything. It may be what's important to you, but I think it somewhat misses the point.
By and large, conservatives (in all countries) want to stop change from happening. Progressives (in all countries) what to enact change. It isn't therefore any surprise that when progressive have the political advantage in a legislature more laws get passed, and when conservatives have the advantage the opposite happens.
By their own measure, the 2023
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what we saw in the motion to vacate where Speaker McCarthy was kicked out. Just 8 Republicans voting to vacate outweighed 210 Republicans voting against.
The irony being that those 8 Republicans required Democrat votes for it to pass, and they were vacating McCarthy for relying on Democrat votes to prevent a government shutdown that nobody actually wants other than the "burn it all down" crowd.
McCarthy dug his grave the instant he allowed any member to file a motion to vacate in the House rules he agreed to in order to get the gavel. There was no way that someone wasn't going to toss his ass the instant he had the audacity to actually do his job and govern.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they need to introduce a bill that they know is going nowhere after doing a quick whip count?
That's what the whips are for. Their job is to know what members' votes are going to be, or to help convince members to get in line. And even then, there are still plenty of "messaging" bills that get introduced, and go nowhere in committee because the assigned review committee knows is bullshit and there isn't even votes to mark it up in the committee, much less pass procedural votes like cloture.
These
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be true that people would make a stand. Like, there is some disagreement amongst Democrats on what to run against this time around, but an even futile attempt to pass something in the Senate would be a great way to highlight the abortion thing in the clearest way possible. Perhaps drive turnout. Get some great media coverage of it and you might see more than a blip in interest.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be true that people would make a stand. Like, there is some disagreement amongst Democrats on what to run against this time around, but an even futile attempt to pass something in the Senate would be a great way to highlight the abortion thing in the clearest way possible. Perhaps drive turnout. Get some great media coverage of it and you might see more than a blip in interest.
This is why I always feel stuck in the middle in US political ideology. I agree with people on the left about many of the terrible downstream effects of corporatism, but so many of them are also true of governmentism, or have categorical equivalents.
The structure of corporate leadership (especially in the C suites and boardrooms) has evolved into a distinct overlord class separated from the daily reality of 90% of people and only or primarily concerned with the next quarter's profit results, not long-term h
Re: (Score:2)
Or gridlock is a bunch of spoiled brats acting like spoiled brats and refusing to do their jobs because it might accidentally make "the other side" not look like incompetent boobs. Why do we have to have threats of government shutdown every few weeks? Because our congress is gridlocked by the panic about accidentally looking competent. It's all bullshit to avoid doing their jobs. The public is essentially screaming, "DO SOMETHING" and congress is replying, "Uhm, how 'bout no?"
Re: (Score:2)
Executive orders are like memos from the CEO. As in, I get a memo in my inbox that says "The state has passed this employment law, therefore we will do the following actions in order to comply". Or, "A reminder to always fill in your time cards by the end of the workday on Friday." Or, "HR reminds me that I'm not allowed to slap my favorite employees on the ass, so from here on out if you want me to slap you on the ass we'll have to do that in secret."
Re: (Score:2)
You know, people are a lot more interested in learning about how things work if you aren't a smug dipshit about answering questions. Think about how you would like to be responded to for asking a question about something you don't know?
Also, consider that the Internet is not bounded to just the United States and it's territories, and there's something like 7+ billion people on the planet that didn't learn the intricacies of the byzantine operation of the United States Government in their primary education.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to the other pretty good responses, the other issue is that there are so many laws and regulations that are effectively "pseudo-laws" that you can't possibly enforce them all. So you have to pick and choose which ones, and if you get a sufficient mass of laws, the executive branch can effectively steer the results by deciding which are going to be pursued and which are not.
Re: (Score:2)
The President is effectively the CEO of various agencies. This is because the laws that established the agencies said so. The president nominates the cabinet members who lead the agencies. As CEO, he can effectively fire people. An "executive order" is the equivalent of a CEO issuing a memo to the company. So using your examples:
order the treasury to release fund to Ukraine,
The Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 [wikipedia.org] passed by congress gives the USAID funding for Ukraine. I assume the USAID
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has created various executive agencies and granted the executive branch powers to operate within guidelines. A different congress may disagree with such guidelines but currently they seem too inept to actually change the legislations. Congress is not micromanaging all the regulations; that could take so much time it would hinder the ability to put on their daily circus act.
So.. when operating within the agencies guidelines, they can introduce regulations without having new legislation. The appela
Re: (Score:2)
Executive Orders can only be issued and executed as an application of existing law, and are subject to judicial review if someone sues to stop it.
The only body authorized to draft and pass new laws, is the legislative branch (Congress).
Re:So, a question on "executive orders" (Score:4, Informative)
There are several "tiers" of federal law that supercede each other in practice:
1. Constitutional law - this is the word of the United States Constitution and it's various ratified amendments. It is supreme among the laws of the United States, and any other law or regulation can be tossed by the judiciary if the law or regulation is in conflict with the Constitution or it's amendments.
2. Statutory law - these are laws passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. These are laws like the Affordable Care Act, Civil Rights Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc. - they can create regulatory agencies with authority to create regulations to be posted in the Federal Register, which are subject to a 60-day review by the Congress [congress.gov] under the Congressional Review Act, or by the judiciary as a result of a lawsuit filed in an "Article III" court (Federal courts).
3. Regulatory law - these are regulations that are passed by the various regulatory agencies created by Congress through statutory law, where Congress delegated regulatory authority to the agency. Any regulation posted to the Federal Register is subject to review by the Congress under the Congressional Review Act where it can be tossed with a "bicameral" vote (both the House and the Senate). Examples of this would be regulatory rules from the EPA, FAA, FCC, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, FDA, etc.
Executive Orders apply to regulatory law - they give the executive agency direction on enforcement priorities, or clarifications within the statutory authority granted. Executive Orders can be tossed by a Federal judge that decides that the EO steps out of the authority granted by Congress, or by Congress exercising their superseding authority to change the statutory law by which the EO is authorized.
Learning a thing or two.. (Score:2)
..from the EU now, are we now?
The more people's lives are exposed to third parties (OS telemetry, website tracking, email tracking, cloud connected anything aplliences, private and personal transport, etcetera), the tighter privacy rules have to become.
Exercise in futility ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to limit this to sales to foreign governments seems futile to me. They will use private proxies. The problem is rather the massive collection of personal data and its sale. American or not.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to say. Why not just make it illegal in any situation, except for certain very specific cases like credit reference agencies.
LEt me get this straight... (Score:3)
When Europe wanted to enact the GDPR, the USoA (under Obama IIRC, under Trump it would have been worse), the State department and the NSA bitched and moaned from here to mars and back about it, and now this?
So, it is legal if USoAn companies buy USoAn's data, but god forbid a foering company (even from an allied country) buys said info?
So, this is done not to favour USoAn's privacy, but to favour USoA's big companies... So, is all about the mighty greenback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Executive Order != Law (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And for reference if we want to see how many each president has issued https://www.presidency.ucsb.ed... [ucsb.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
EOs are fine and dandy when dealing with executive branch related stuff, such as key points of emphasis when enforcing existing law... but they are not law, nor can they be treated as such unless Congress actually enacts such legislation
Believe what you want. Men with guns will ensure that your lack of attention to Reality becomes very focused very suddenly. That is the danger of Executive Orders; they are effectively Law.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe what you want. Men with guns will ensure that your lack of attention to Reality becomes very focused very suddenly. That is the danger of Executive Orders; they are effectively Law.
Treating them as law creates "legislation by fiat," which is not how our system works. It's going to take some major SCOTUS cases to halt this trend. It also means Congress has to do its job, and they are loathe to do anything that might upset their reelection prospects. They are more than happy to put on a show without actually doing anything or understanding the ramifications of what they do or fail to do... so long as they stay in power.
I hate this phrase... (Score:1)
"pose an unacceptable risk"
Unacceptable to whom? Who gets to decide, and based on what criteria? They do this all the time; both parties are guilty of it. Be specific! I don't really want my data being sold at all, but now and then it might be useful to me to have it shared. It should be clear when and where, and with whom, that can happen.
congress useless (Score:3)
We would not need Executive Orders very much if Congress did anything but prevent progress. Congress is useless and is holding the country back. Vote for people that get things done.
Re: (Score:1)
More dick pictures will certainly help the country. https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Biden is sharp after all (Score:3, Insightful)
All data brokers are a national security risk (Score:2)
Full stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Re: (Score:2)
That wide open border should be priority number one.
I called my Senators and Congressperson to support the border bill on the record, did you?
The insane costs of rent / housing and food.
Do we have your support for unprecedented Federal intervention into housing markets which have primarily been the realm of state and local governments? Let's do it! I fully back Federal public funding of additional housing in strained markets and overriding of restrictive zoning, parking and environmental laws.
Inflation / high prices in general.
The US is well in front of the G7 in inflation metrics as well as an increase is wages for the lower and middl
Re: (Score:2)
In order to work on many of those things, they need a good faith partner to work with in Congress, or the party holding the White House needs to have 218+ seats in the US House of Representatives, and 60+ in the Senate.
Biden has no good faith partner in GOP Congressional leadership.
Biden does not have 218+ seats in the House, or 60+ in the Senate.
Even not having those things, he still encouraged a bipartisan effort in the Senate to speak to the border and ongoing opioid / fentanyl problem and the bad-faith
Re: (Score:2)
That wide open border should be priority number one.
This has always seemed like an "old man shakes fist at television" problem. Something to get upset about if there's really nothing else going on in your life that personally affects you. The majority of the US population lives on either coast, making the southern border very much an out of sight, out of mind issue.
The insane costs of rent / housing and food.
The government has limited ability to correct malfunctions in capitalism by means other than wealth redistribution. Both major political parties oppose wealth redistribution on the scale necess
Re: (Score:1)
lol
A step-by-step guide to how one debunked story fueled Republicans’ Biden impeachment effort [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I laugh that all these accusations that Joe Biden was involved in his family's business dealings are made by people totally loyal to Donald Trump who openly put his own family in key unelected positions while it was an open secret that he was still running the family's business.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the accusations are made by Russian intelligence assets as well, per a recently unsealed indictment of the "informant" that Trump's congressional bootlicker caucus has been basing their entire clown show on.